Reports Search

The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body set up to work towards a new Pandemic Accord has presented its version of a text building on the zero draft, and that, to an extent, draws on some of the newer suggestions provided by WHO member states. But in doing so, some say, the Bureau has had to make political choices in moving these sensitive negotiations forward.

None of this is surprising. A process as political as this one, will not please everybody. In fact, early reactions to the Bureau’s Text suggest that countries, the industry, activists and scholars have been disappointed. The process already risks being seen as a potentially unfulfilled promise that a new Pandemic Accord has come to embody.

The text shows weaker language on a number of key provisions including public funding disclosures, intellectual property waivers, but does contain potentially far-reaching provisions on pooling of tech, recognition of differentiated responsibilities and debt relief.

The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body set up to work towards a new Pandemic Accord has presented its version of a text building on the zero draft, and that, to an extent, draws on some of the newer suggestions provided by WHO member states. But in doing so, some say, the Bureau has had to make political choices in moving these sensitive negotiations forward. … The text shows weaker language on a number of key provisions including public funding disclosures, intellectual property waivers, but does contain potentially far-reaching provisions on pooling of tech, recognition of differentiated responsibilities and debt relief.

The global will to ensure that COVID-19 is a “never-again” pandemic is dissipating fast, according to many delegates attending the World Health Assembly (WHA) and its plethora of side events – threatening initiatives such as local manufacturing of vaccines. … On Friday, the WHA passed a resolution to strengthen countries’ diagnostic testing capacity, stressing support for the local production of diagnostic tools and tests in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). … Meanwhile, Wellcome Trust, one of the biggest private donors of infectious disease response, kicked off a global conversation about what needs to be done in a discussion paper released a few days back that declares: “The R&D infrastructure ecosystem for infectious disease is unfit for purpose and requires ambitions overhaul.” … Wellcome points out that “resources are not allocated to research activities efficiently or equitably with whole fields suffering long-term neglect”.

A new “Zero+” version of a proposed World Health Organization pandemic accord being negotiated by member states has dropped previously strong language that conditioned use of public R&D funds to private sector commitments to price transparency and tech transfer of end products, among other measures. However, the updated draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch, still contains ‘optional’ language linking developing countries’ sharing of pathogen information to a guaranteed supply of drugs, vaccines and other health tools that they would access a WHO distribution scheme. While not a formal part of this week’s World Health Assembly (WHA) proceedings, the text drafted by the “Bureau” of six member states guiding the talks is being circulated this week as they prepare for another round of negotiations over the new accord, scheduled by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) 12-16 June. … However, both civil society and pharma appear likely to oppose parts of the updated text – for very different reasons.

Richer countries should be asked to better pull their weight in helping the world cope with pandemics, according to a new draft of a treaty being negotiated at the World Health Organization. Countries with more "capacities and resources" should bear a "commensurate degree" of responsibility for preparing for and responding to global health threats, the document, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, suggests. … The 42-page document sent to member states and non-governmental organisations on Tuesday was drawn up based on suggestions from all member states in response to previous versions of the text. Countries have the option to remove numerous paragraphs from it in future negotiations, including the one about responsibilities. … A clause in an earlier draft obliging pharmaceutical companies to make details of their deals with governments public appears to have been dropped. The document also defines "pandemic" - one of several sticking points that have already taken up negotiating time - as "the global spread of a pathogen or variant" that spreads easily, is dangerous, overwhelms health systems, and requires international coordination.

… As the who’s who of global health descends on Geneva in the coming days for the World Health Assembly — the annual meeting of the decision-making body of the World Health Organization — the fate of the treaty will be the main topic of discussion over glasses of champagne at swanky receptions. … On intellectual property rights, the U.S. has taken a big red pen to the draft text, stripping out mention of waivers of intellectual property rights. It also wants to weaken provisions that would require pharmaceutical companies to license other manufacturers to produce their products. For the debate over whether sharing information regarding new pathogens should be linked to some kind of benefit — potentially monetary — the line is less clear. The Global South, which is pushing to include the benefits link, has the biggest ask, said a second Geneva-based diplomat who also requested anonymity to talk about confidential negotiations. But a flat no from the Global North could see them lose timely access to those pathogens — something that could delay the development of pathogen-specific vaccines or treatments, and cost lives.

WHO member states began discussions on the Pandemic Accord based on a Zero Draft that was adopted at the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body this week in Geneva. The meeting was a complex discussion on process, modalities and a first reading of all the provisions of the Zero Draft. Countries also began with text-based negotiations.

It also saw the exclusion of non-state actors (NSAs) from participating as observers in the closed door drafting sessions that included mostly member states. The sheer diversity and the strength of the statements from NSAs including CSOs and other organizations, have been striking, and have made their presence felt in these discussions that have so far been relatively transparent and inclusive.

The Zero Draft of the proposed pandemic instrument to be negotiated at the World Health Organization creates an illusion of equity.

The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) released the document WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response known as “WHO CA+” on 1 February 2023.

1. In recognition of the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the World Health Assembly convened a second special session in December 2021, where it established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) open to all Member States and Associate Members (and regional economic integration organizations as appropriate) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, with a view to its adoption under Article 19, or under other provisions of the WHO Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that as a global community, we need to strengthen systems to prevent, prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. Member States and the World Health Organization have agreed that in order to achieve this we must amend the International Health Regulations and negotiate a new international legal agreement on pandemics, the ‘Pandemic Accord’.

The success of the amended IHR and the pandemic accord will depend not only on the text of these instruments themselves but on the capacity of governments to work with their people to implement its obligations, in times of both calm and crisis. The inclusion of civil society perspectives in the drafting, negotiation, implementation, monitoring, and compliance of these instruments is the only way to ensure that the content of the instruments is centred on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable communities and groups. And it is the only way to build trust and mobilise support for the implementation of amended frameworks and treaties.